Commonwealth v. Conaway
105 A.3d 755
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- On Sept. 4, 2012, a 2002 Lexus was taken from the attached garage of 16 Blakemore Court; occupants observed the vehicle leaving and a purse was thrown from it.
- Multiple officers pursued the Lexus; several witnesses (homeowner's son, local officers, a homeowner whose van was being rifled) later identified William Conaway at or near the scene; Conaway was found with debit/credit cards in his name and hospital paperwork bearing his name was in the Lexus.
- Conaway was tried by jury and convicted of burglary (18 Pa.C.S. §3502(a)(1)) and other offenses; sentenced to 5–10 years for burglary and consecutive 18 months–3 years for fleeing/eluding; other convictions were not challenged on appeal.
- At trial the court instructed the jury that the Commonwealth had satisfied the statutory element that the property entered was a “building or occupied structure ... adapted for overnight accommodations,” reserving to the jury only whether Conaway entered the garage.
- Conaway appealed, arguing the court usurped the jury’s role on an element that affects grading/penalties (invoking Apprendi/Alleyne), and also challenged sufficiency of the information; the Superior Court vacated the burglary conviction and remanded for a new trial on burglary and resentencing on all counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Conaway) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly instructed the jury by telling them the court had determined the garage satisfied the statutory definition of an occupied structure adapted for overnight accommodations | The element is a mixed question of law and fact; the court may decide the legal question (whether the garage is an occupied structure) while the jury decides whether defendant entered it; the instruction avoided juror confusion | The court impermissibly decided an element of the offense for the jury; that element affects grading/mandatory minimums so under Apprendi/Alleyne it must be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt | Trial court erred; jury was usurped on an element tied to grading/penalty; conviction vacated and new trial ordered on burglary |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove the attached garage was adapted for overnight accommodations | (Not reached on appeal because trial court resolution on instruction) | Insufficient evidence to treat an attached garage as an overnight-accommodation structure | Moot in light of vacatur; Superior Court declined to decide on sufficiency |
| Whether the criminal information failed to allege essential burglary elements (overnight accommodation and person present) | Information used statutory language and expressly noted “Overnight Accommodation” and “Person Present”; provided sufficient notice to prepare a defense | Information omitted explicit allegation of those elements so failed to give adequate notice | Information found sufficient; claim denied |
| Whether vacating the burglary conviction affects overall sentence | (No separate affirmative posture) | N/A | Because vacating one count may disrupt the sentencing scheme, Superior Court vacated entire judgment of sentence and remanded for resentencing on all convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact that increases penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury and proved beyond reasonable doubt)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum are elements that must be submitted to the jury)
- Commonwealth v. Burwell, 42 A.3d 1077 (Pa. Super. 2012) (trial judge improperly suggested an element was proven, usurping jury factfinding)
- Commonwealth v. Munday, 78 A.3d 661 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discussion of burglary elements and Apprendi/Alleyne implications)
- Commonwealth v. Roser, 914 A.2d 447 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standards for reviewing jury charge challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Chambers, 852 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2004) (sufficiency of indictment/information to give notice)
- Commonwealth v. Nixon, 801 A.2d 1241 (Pa. Super. 2002) (definition and analysis of "adapted for overnight accommodation")
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 983 A.2d 767 (Pa. Super. 2009) (upholding burglary conviction where portion of structure qualified as adapted for overnight accommodation)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 585 A.2d 533 (Pa. Super. 1991) (examples of structures qualifying as occupied structures for burglary)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 26 A.3d 485 (Pa. Super. 2011) (vacatur of sentence when a conviction is vacated in a multi-count case may require resentencing)